Instigator / Pro
2
1395
rating
12
debates
4.17%
won
Topic
#1332

Morphic fields must exist

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

The resolution adds the 'must' qualifier, raising the BoP requirements (similarly, 'probably' would have lowered it; which really should have been done to suite the limited evidence... actually a 'might' qualifier would have been best).

Arguments: Pro makes some claims about observed things and a didit fallacy, con counters them. Con adds a three part case against them, which pro wholly drops (to include #2, which pre-refuted his assertions in the following round... that pro goes on to complain that he couldn't understand the pre-refutation of his case, does not bode well).

I was left without a clue what this M field is supposed to be (maybe something about Magneto from the X-Men?), which is the below the bare minimum this debate should have accomplished.

Pro: next time walk us through the scientific method on it, to include the falsifiability (given the scientific nature of this, I am giving sources for con providing links and explanations to improve your future arguments... and yeah, sources not worked into a case aren't within consideration).